In order to understand the differences between the RNCCSD and RCCSD values better, we give results from individual terms of these methods for \(\alpha _d\) , \(\alpha _q\)  and \(B\)  in Tables REF , REF  and REF , respectively. In Table REF , we also give the corresponding contributions to \(\alpha _d\)  from the RCCSD method that were reported previously in Refs. [1]}, [2]}. It can be seen from the term-by-term comparison between the RCCSD and RNCCSD results from the present calculations that contributions arising through the complex conjugate (c.c.) terms and the counter RNCC terms are quite different. Comparing values of individual RCC terms among the earlier calculations [1]}, [2]} and ours, we find the trends from different terms differ. There is a similarity in the trends between the present work and Ref. [1]} as the implementation procedures of the RCC method is same in these calculations but the basis functions used in both the cases are different. We have used a much larger basis set of functions with 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, and 35 GTOs for the \(s\) , \(p\) , \(d\) , \(f\) , \(g\)  and \(h\)  orbitals respectively, whereas only 35 GTOs were used for each symmetry up to \(g\)  orbitals in Ref. [1]}. Furthermore, we have optimized the the GTO parameters by adopting a Machine Learning based optimization technique this time as mentioned earlier. It should be noted that calculations in Ref. [2]} and in the present work are carried out using orbitals up to \(h\) -symmetry and same levels of approximations are considered in the RCC theory, but the implementation procedures are different in these works. Now comparing the correlation trends through the individual RCC terms of Ref. [2]} with our calculation, we find the difference in the result from \(DT_1^{(1)}\)  (along with its c.c. term) is small but they differ substantially among other RCC terms. We notice that contribution arising through the normalization of the wave function (quoted as `Norm' in Table REF ) in Ref. [2]} is quite large. In fact, it is larger than the difference between our DF and final RCC results (i.e. the net correlation contributions). In this view, we feel that by implementing the RCC theory in which only the connected terms are retained (also Norm factor does not appear) in Eq. (REF ) is more credible. Nonetheless, our RNCC theory takes care of this normalization factor in a natural manner. Unlike \(\alpha _d\)  calculations, \(\alpha _q\)  value of Zn was not evaluated using the linear response RCC theory earlier. Therefore, we could not make a comparative study between the contributions from our RCC terms with any earlier study in Table REF  but show only the comparison of contributions from various terms of the RCCSD and RNCCSD methods.
<TABLE>